The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is the same old discussion... People that wouldn't ever purchase a Mac arguing that it still costs to much for what you get. These are the people that will never get one even if they were $100. G4's are plenty powerful to run all the design apps and then some.

I see your point but again although I really want a Mac it becomes a hard choice for me to shell out a large amount of cash for a machine that is barely more powerful that my current on of two years age and of less cost.

It just be nice if we had a little something inbetween this and a powermac. The idea of both the mini and the imac is to make everything look cool and be compact. I just want a nice Mac base unit that I can run on my current CRT monitor that is plenty of power but maybe not streching as far out as powermac.

With the iMac you are paying for 1) making everything fit nicely in the small space and 2) for the screen. I would love that power in a simple base unit and i'd be happy.

I think the mini Mac would struggle to meet that based on my experences of the G4 1.4ghz processor and again the front side bus is very slow.

You are comparing RISC to CISC. Your PC processors are CISC based. They don't run as efficiently as a RISC processor and therefore need more speed. The whole Megahertz/Gigahertz argument is nothing but a marketing ploy today. What you need to look at is instructions per second. The only company that still relies on Megahertz/Gigahertz is Intel and it is all marketing today. They are behind the curve in development and what you to think they are faster.

You would probably be interested to know that the same G4 chip in the Mac Mini, powers thousands of RS/6000 computers around the world sold by IBM. Albeit, they have multiple processors but they are also processing tens of thousands of database transactions a second. Visa uses RS/6000 machines to keep track of over 1 million transactions per second and they are using processors that are equivalent to the G4.

While the memory seems a little low, that is easily rectified and the overall price of the computer is not bad. Considering the fact that you can use them headless (no monitor) for distributed computing, I can see them selling quite a few to research institutions looking to lower costs and eliminate space needs.

Will be investigating it in-depth come March when I look for a computer. Will also look into it for my Retail store if I can find a decent POS package for Mac. Was already considering eMac for a kiosk in my retail store but will have to compare that with this new offering.

You are comparing RISC to CISC. Your PC processors are CISC based. They don't run as efficiently as a RISC processor and therefore need more speed. The whole Megahertz/Gigahertz argument is nothing but a marketing ploy today.

I am aware, but that does not escape the fact that I have used a G4 iMac 1.4ghz (same processor as the higher mini model) and I found it to be slow. I have also used a iMac G5 and was largely disappointed in the speed of the machine.

Will be investigating it in-depth come March when I look for a computer. Will also look into it for my Retail store if I can find a decent POS package for Mac. Was already considering eMac for a kiosk in my retail store but will have to compare that with this new offering.

PM me if you would like to know some solid ones some of my clients use.

I am aware, but that does not escape the fact that I have used a G4 iMac 1.4ghz (same processor as the higher mini model) and I found it to be slow. I have also used a iMac G5 and was largely disappointed in the speed of the machine.

Megahertz myth's aside, slow is still slow.

How much RAM was in those machines? Memory makes a huge difference (probably more than the processor) in how snappy OSX feels.

If your working on a G5 and you go to a G4 is going to be slower... that doesn't mean it can't do the job. Must of the actions you do on a regular basis you won't even see the difference (except opening applications). Especially if your just using Dreamweaver and Photoshop.

As for RAM 256MB is the worst for OSX, its like running 256 with XP. Why they just don't make the minimum 512MB is beyond me. Guessing its because they donít want people to know the OS uses a lot of memory.

If your working on a G5 and you go to a G4 is going to be slower... that doesn't mean it can't do the job. Must of the actions you do on a regular basis you won't even see the difference (except opening applications). Especially if your just using Dreamweaver and Photoshop.

As for RAM 256MB is the worst for OSX, its like running 256 with XP. Why they just don't make the minimum 512MB is beyond me. Guessing its because they don’t want people to know the OS uses a lot of memory.

Yeah, I guess so. I have the extra memory at home now!! Just waiting for the damn iMac to arrive!

The models I have used have been the standard so I assume they were 256mb

We actually sold a G4 iMac for £600 yesterday and it came back in store today, customer complained it was too slow compared to his older machine running Mac os 8.

Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard, sounds like someone didn't like OSX. Also with new machines the OS caches a lot... even open windows and little stuff like that. The more you work the quicker it becomes.

I'll be totally honest that when I watched him doing what he was doing I was puzzled at why he belived this was slow. I have noticed it be slow in other applications but internet surfing it was not, the slowness was due to the dailup and not the Mac.

His problems I argured were down to AOL version 9 (of which he uses AOL version 5 on his older machine) but to me everything seemed fine.

well i think they did it to attract more pc users anyways...there are too many problems with pcs...macs are great and always will be...probably until all the pc users come over and start creating viruses for us...
and the ipod shuffle was a great release as an alternate to the bulky ipod

I was poking around for a second-hand mac for testing last week and the local mac shop said "wait on - have a look at this". The mini is perfect for us - we're currently all PCs and are using browsercam for screenshots. But do the math - in about 12 months the (cancelled) browsercam subscription has paid for a mini.

Can't wait till next month! I'm gonna have one of those mac thingy-majiggies. Maybe I'm moving over to the dark side...